Guest Columnist

Moving the goal posts on Iowa City development

The site of the proposed 15-story project between Burlington and Court streets that is on hold. (Maddison Arnold/ The Gazette)
The site of the proposed 15-story project between Burlington and Court streets that is on hold. (Maddison Arnold/ The Gazette)

The Core 4 of the Iowa City Council (Mayor Jim Throgmorton and council members Rockne Cole, Pauline Taylor, and John Thomas) have indicated a potentially major shift for the future of development in River Front Crossings. At the May 29 meeting, they added “Review RFC Form Based Code, including density bonus provisions and height allowances” to the list of topics to be discussed at a future work session.

This comes on the heels of the Council refusing to move forward with the rezoning of the Pentacrest Garden Apartments at 12 E. Court St. to “RFC — South Downtown District.” This property is in River Front Crossings, just south of Burlington St. and just west of UI Voxman Music Building.

The rezoning is aligned with the Master Plan (or Comprehensive Plan) which specifically calls out this “superblock” as ideal for student housing. The plan also mentions: “Additional building height and density may be possible if parking demand is accommodated underground or off-site.”

The Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously approved the rezoning. The developer agreed to a Conditional Zoning Agreement which among other things gives P & Z the final authority to approve the design plan and dedicates right of way to the city to reopen Capitol Street.

This project would: generate 80-100 affordable housing units; help take pressure off the near campus neighborhoods; generate an estimated $1.4 million in additional annual tax revenue for the city; and reopen Capitol Street. The recent housing study clearly shows that more of this type of development is needed, even with The Rise on Court and Linn.

Why did the council refuse to move forward with the rezoning? Building height. Members of the Core 4 repeatedly expressed concerns about the potential height of the buildings, and 3 of the 4 refused to support the rezoning at the May 29 meeting.

There are processes and regulations in place to guide P & Z and the Council when considering height bonuses. These are, and should be, totally separate from the rezoning process. While it was appropriate for the council to communicate concerns about height to the developer at this stage, there was no reason to not move forward with the rezoning.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

The creation and approval of the Form Based Code was a comprehensive process with a great deal of public input, with months of consideration by Planning & Zoning. P & Z approved the Code 6-1 with Thomas in the negative. It was approved unanimously by the City Council, including Throgmorton.

The Code was intended to incentivize and guide redevelopment south of Burlington Street using a clear set of standards based on progressive urban planning and a focus on environmental stewardship and the promotion of affordable housing.

It appears that this council is now preparing to move the goal posts when it comes to redevelopment of River Front Crossings.

During the Chauncey debate there was much discussion of height and location. In a June 11, 2013 article in the Daily Iowan, council member Cole, as co-head of the Iowa Coalition against the Shadow, commented that “the group welcomes the development of future high-rises on land south of Burlington Street.” While he did not support moving forward with rezoning at the May 15 meeting, he did at the May 29 meeting. However, he did seem to agree with Throgmorton that the project as proposed by the developers is too dense with four buildings each at 15 stories.

Throgmorton, who supported the Form Based Code at the time of its adoption, has now initiated the request that council review that code, specifically the density bonuses and height allowances.

This is not the first opposition to taller buildings from this council. In my opinion, their lack of support for work force housing tax credits was to limit the height of a building on S. Linn St. Three of the Core 4 voted against a project in the north side that “might” be 5 stories.

On a 4-3 vote (Core 4 in favor) the council supported a TIF policy for downtown which effectively restricts heights based on an un-vetted height map. It includes language which specifically states at the end of the height section: “The provisions of this section will apply until such time as a Downtown Form-Based Code is adopted.” What will that code look like, and how restrictive will it be with regard to height?

Council member Taylor has publicly stated, “I don’t like tall buildings.”

They should recognize and address the conflicts between their aesthetic preference for building heights and the many other policies they support, i.e. walkability, preventing urban sprawl, sustainability, etc. Most importantly it restricts housing supply which pushes rents up, including at the low “affordable” end.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT

Where do we go from here? The Council will have a consultation with P & Z, tentatively on July 3, regarding the rezoning. Even if the rezoning is granted, will the developer get to use their bonus densities and build to the height they would like? I doubt it with this council.

What will it do to future development in River Front Crossings? It increases uncertainty, which discourages development. Developers need to know where the goal posts are, and right now it looks like they are getting ready to move.

• Susan Mims is a member of Iowa City Council.

Give us feedback

We value your trust and work hard to provide fair, accurate coverage. If you have found an error or omission in our reporting, tell us here.

Or if you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.

CONTINUE READING

Want to join the conversation?

Consider subscribing to TheGazette.com and participate in discussing the important issues to our community with other Gazette subscribers.

Already a Gazette or TheGazette.com subscriber? Just login here with your account email and password.

Give us feedback

We value your trust and work hard to provide fair, accurate coverage. If you have found an error or omission in our reporting, tell us here.

Or if you have a story idea we should look into? Tell us here.